The
U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 today that police officers can bar suspects from
entering their own residence while authorities acquire a search warrant.

The
Court ruled temporary seizure of a premises, given the nature of the intrusion
and the interest of law enforcement involved, was constitutionally permissible.

Civil
liberties groups criticize the ruling as a further reduction of the
constitutional guarantees of privacy, and protection from unreasonable searches
and seizures found in the Fourth
Amendment.

The
case grew out a 1997 domestic incident in which Sullivan, Illinois police were
asked to protect a woman while she removed her belonging from a mobile home
where she lived with her husband.

At
some point, the woman informed police that her husband had hidden a quantity of
marijuana under the sofa.

When
an officer spoke to him, the husband stepped outside, where he refused to allow
the officer to search the house. The officer's partner then left the scene to
get a search warrant.

When
the husband said he was going back inside the house, the remaining officer told
him he could not reenter the house unless he (the police officer) went with him.

The husband
then proceeded to go in and out of the house several times
while the officer stood just inside the doorway to observe his actions.

Two
hours later, now with a warrant, officers searched the home and found the
marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. The husband was charged with possession
of less than 2.5 grams of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, both misdemeanors.

At
trial, lawyers for the defendant moved that the marijuana and drug paraphernalia
not be allowed as evidence on the grounds that they were the "fruit"
of an unconstitutional police seizure. The Illinois trial court agreed and the
evidence was thrown out. After the Illinois State Court of Appeals upheld the
trial court's decision, the State of Illinois appealed to the Supreme Court.

In
the court's 8-1 majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer found that police had
probable cause to believe the home contained evidence of a crime and had good
reason to believe the evidence would be destroyed if they allowed the husband to
reenter the home alone.

"And
they imposed a restraint that was both limited and tailored reasonably to secure
law enforcement needs while protecting privacy interests," wrote Breyer.

The
only dissenting opinion was from Justice John Paul Stevens who wrote that he
would uphold the Illinois trial court, "who
placed a higher value on the sanctity of the ordinary citizen's home than on the
prosecution of this petty offense."